se DocuMENT No. 2. 


oe 
4 
4 
a, 
Por 


3 THE COMMERCIAL 


“# 


RELATIONS 


BETWEEN GERMANY 


AND THE © a 


UNITED STATES 


THE GERMANTIA PRESS 
5-BEEKMAN STREET 
NEW York Crty 


A 


Pei ya | S/T - »% 
FEN Sele hE 
ls Yin ®NAL 

+ ot PtP ce al 
Lv a + 

« 4 
* 
¢ 
1 
. ‘ 
‘ 


ISAAC GOLDMANN CO., 
See ee rinttets, ee 
200-204 William St., New York. 


° 


AYHE FIRST TREATY of perfect equality and reciprocity in commercial rela- 
| tions into which the United States of America entered was the one with Frederick 
the Great of Prussia, concluded September roth, in the year 1785, at the Hague, 
with Privy Councellor F. G. de Thulemeier as Prussian Plenipotentiary. 


Cana must have considered this treaty of weighty importance because on the part of 
the United States there had been intrusted with the negotiations: John Adams, then Minister 
Plenipotentiary at London, President of the United States from 1797-1801; Dr. Benjamin 
Franklin; and Thomas Jefferson, then Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, President of the 
United States from 1801-1809—the best minds of the country. 

These paragraphs are expressive of the spirit of the treaty: 

“His Majesty, the King of Prussia, and the United States of America, desiring to fix, in a permanent 
manner, the rules to be observed in the increase of commerce between their respective countries, His Ma- 


jesty and the United States have judged that the said end cannot be better obtained than by taking the most 
perfect equality and reciprocity for the basis of their agreement, and do agree 


“That there shall be a firm, inviolable and universal peace and sincere friendship between His Majesty 
the King of Prussia, his heirs, successors and subjects on the one part, and the United States of America on 
the other, without exception of persons or places.” 

The life of this treaty was ten years. 

A “renewed Treaty of Amity and Commerce” between His Majesty, the King of Prussia, 
and the United States of America was concluded at Berlin, July 11, 1799, during the presi- 
dency of John Adams, one of the signers of the first treaty of 1785; ratifications advised by 
the Senate, February 18, 1800; ratified by the President February 19, 1800; ratifications 
exchanged at Berlin, June 22, 1800; proclaimed, November 4, 1800. 

For the negotiations the American Plenipotentiary was John Quincy Adams, then Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Prussian Majesty, President of the United States 
from 1825-1829. This time it was the King of Prussia who distinguished the negotiations 
and the affair by appointing as his plenipotentiaries his highest ministers of state and most 
trusted advisers, as can be seen from the preamble to the treaty: 

“His Majesty, the King of Prussia, and the United States of America, desiring to maintain upon a 
stable and permanent footing the connection of good understanding which has hitherto so happily subsisted 
between their respective States, and for this purpose to renew the treaty of Amity and Commerce, con- 
cluded between the two powers at the Hague, the 10th of September 1785, for the term of 10 years, His 
Prussian Majesty has nominated and constituted as his Plenipotentiaries the Count Charles William de 
Finkenstein, his Minister of State, of War, and of the Cabinet, Knight of the Orders of the Black Eagle 
and of the Red Eagle, and Commander of that of St. John of Jerusalem; the Baron Philip Charles d’Alvens- 
leben, his Minister of State, of War and of the Cabinet, Knight of the Orders of the Black Eagle and of 
the Red Eagle, and Commander of that of St. John of Jerusalem; and the Count Christian Henry Curt 
de Haugwitz, his Minister of State, of War and of the Cabinet, Knight of the Orders of the Black Eagle 
and of the Red Eagle.” 

This treaty reaffirmed all the sentiments of good will and sincere friendship expressed in 
the first covenant between the two nations. 


Further development in the intercourse made amendments necessary and during the 
Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the signer of the second treaty of 1799, negotiations were 
carried on between Secretary of State Henry Clay and the Sieur Ludwig Niederstetter, 
Chargé d’Affaires of His Majesty the King of Prussia. 

This treaty was concluded May 1, 1828; ratification advised May 4, 1828; ratification 
again advised and time for exchange extended March 9, 1829; ratifications exchanged at 
Washington, March 14, 1829; proclaimed by President Andrew Jackson, March 14, 1829. 


3 


Again desire is expressed in the preamble to maintain the relations of good under- 
standing: 

“The United States of America and His Majesty the King of Prussia, equally animated with the 
desire of maintaining the relations of good understanding, which have hitherto so happily subsisted be- 
tween their respective States, of extending, also, and consolidating the commercial intercourse between 
them, and convinced that this object cannot better be accomplished than by adopting the system of an 
entire freedom of navigation, and a perfect reciprocity, based upon principles of equity equally beneficial to 
both countries, and applicable in time of peace, as well as in time of war, have, in consequence, agreed to 
enter into negotiations for the conclusion of a treaty of navigation and commerce, etc., etc.” 

The fourth and last Reciprocity treaty was initiated, negotiated and concluded during 
the administration of President William McKinley. This agreement was in conformity with 
the authority conferred on the President in section 3 of the or Act of the United 
States, approved July 24, 1897 (the Dingley bill). ; 

It was signed by Secretary of State John Hay and Ambassador Von Holleben on July 
IO, 1900. 

This agreement in consideration of reduced tariff rates on certain German products put 
the United States on the same footing with the powers which had concluded commercial trea- 
ties with Germany during the years 1891-1894. 


CO * oS 


This short historical summary makes it manifest that the two great sister nations have 
lived in harmonious commercial peace relations ever since the great Republic of the West 
took her place among the free and independent nations of the world. Why should there, in 
these late days, be a change in the pleasant intercourse which has been mutually so bene- 
ficial ? 

We owe a debt to Germany. She rejoiced with us in sunny days. She also proved a 
friend in need. Her sons have become loyal citizens of their adopted land. Trace any industry 
in America to its origin and a German pioneer will be found. The stability of the Protective 
Tariff System is a sacred creed among many German-Americans. 

So why should there be any disagreement in these late days? 


Still it must be confessed that for some time there has been a good deal of unpleasant 
friction, especially in the public opinion of the two nations. Only recently a tariff war 
between Germany and the United States was avoided in the very last moment, and, in justice 
it must be stated, mainly through the peace desiring attitude of Germany. 


On February 22nd this year the Imperial German Government asked the Reichstag for 
the authority to extend provisionally the reciprocal tariff rates to the United States until June 
30th, 1907, “not as a right under the most favored nation interpretation but in order 
that the negotiations pending may be conducted to a satisfactory end and because 
it is in the interest of both countries to avoid a tariff war.” 

The Reichstag desirous to give the United States all the time possible for mature con- 
sideration granted the government’s request by a large majority. This action was taken in 
spite of the fact that the German government had been compelled by her trade arrangements 
with other nations to denounce on November 3oth last year the Reciprocity treaty with the 
United States concluded in 1900, the termination to take effect March rst, 1906. 

The provisional makeshift arranged in the last days of February this year means that the 
final settlement of the entire question of trade relations between the two nations has been 
put off for sixteen months, that is before or until June 30th, 1907. The correspondence 
exchanged on this occassion clearly proves that Germany has no desire to be the aggressor 
in a disturbance of the commercial peace. It’s out of place here to analyze the motive which 


4 


prompted the German government to make these conciliatory concessions, but those who 
maintain that this postponement is likely to be a permanent one misjudge the situa- 
tion. 

What then is the situation? 


If Germany were a free agent in this tariff matter such permanent postponement might 
be or might not be the case. But she is not. In the policy of her foreign trade relations she 
has to live up to the agreements made with other nations. These sacred covenants stipulate 
specifically that neither of the contracting parties is permitted to grant the concessions 
mutually agreed to to other nations without equivalents of the same value. Consequently, 
Germany, however much she might wish to do so for the purpose of obliging us as a friendly 
nation, is powerless to grant us permanently without adequate reciprocal concessions on our 
part the same conventional tariff rates which she conceded to the seven signatory powers, viz. 
Russia, Austro-Hungary, Italy, Belgium, Roumania, Servia and Switzerland, only after these 
powers had framed commercial treaties with Germany for mutual advantage. 


In other words through the present provisional arrangement we get from Germany 
practically for nothing tariff favors for which friendly and neighborly powers have to pay 
dollar for dollar. It stands to reason that these powers have already just and sufficient reason 
for complaint, because during the life time of this provisional arrangement the United States 
is treated by Germany as more than most favored nation. If, let us assume it for 
argument’s sake, this provisional arrangement in its present form should be extended to 
permanency then these seven signatory powers would be fully justified—and in fact they 
would not hesitate a moment to do so—to cancel immediately on the ground of non-fulfille- 
ment of honorable obligation their treaty arrangements with Germany. 


It is proper to discuss right here the assertion ‘(Germany cannot afford to enforce her 
position, in a trade war with the United States she would lose more than win.” This may-be— 
true as regards the last sentence, but, however deplorable Germany might and undoubtedly 
would consider the loss of her trade with the United States her loss would be a thousand 
times greater if the seven signatory powers were to cancel their trade arrangements with her 
on account of her over-friendly attitude to the United States. Her trade with the United 
States is fluctuating and uncertain, but that with her neighbors is certain and increasing. 
From this it can be deducted that if forced to the alternative of chosing between her 
American trade and that of the signatory powers’ common commercial prudence would 
compel her to decide against us, much as she might dislike doing so. 


This is in plain words the situation. 


Our present position in asserting that we treat Germany like all other nations but 
claiming under the most favored nation clause, without making any reciprocal concessions 
of adequate equivalent, favors granted by Germany to other nations for quid pro quo is 
neither morally correct nor just in international relations. 


Besides are we treating all nations alike? 


Have we not granted exceptional rights to Cuba? Are we not giving to some nations 
the preferential rates—such as they are—provided in Section 3 of the Dingley Act without 
giving them to all? Are we not then discriminating ourselves? Have we not by treaty 
enactment given approval to certain discriminations on the part of France? Are not Spain, 
Portugal and certain English possessions like Canada, South Africa and Australasia 
discriminating against us without our retaliation? 


Now as regards the most favored nation clause. 


5 


The treaty of 1829 between the United States and Prussia, which is claimed to have 
become automatically operative for the whole of Germany through the formation of that em- 
pire with Prussia as the leading State, says in Paragraph IX: 


“If either party shall hereafter grant to any other nation any particular favor in navi- 
gation or commerce, it shall immediately become common to the other party, freely where 
it is freely granted to such other nation, or on yielding the same compensation where the 
grant is conditional.” 

There is the point. 


If Germany had granted freely favors to others we would have been entitled under this 
clause to obtain also freely the very same favors. But this is not the case. In fact the 
tariff grant, that is the minimum rates, by Germany to the previously mentioned seven sign- 
atory powers was conditional on yielding compensation. Yet we refuse any compensation. 
We demand that Germany grants us these favors freely and if refused we threaten as was 
done by the McCleary bill to add horrizontally 25 per cent. to the Dingley rates on all 
German imports. 

This is not just! This is not fair! 


The trouble is that Germany’s position is not clearly and correctly understood. Other- 
wise public opinion would be reversed. Because we must not forget that the United States 
is a proud and just nation. We certainly do not want something for nothing and we most 
assuredly do not need charity. Public opinion in the United States, if it once grasps the 
point at issue will most emphatically insist that we ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar's,” in 
other words that we pay for favors the same compensation which other and smaller and 
poorer nations are paying for the same favors. 


Moreover : 


rr 


~~ Through a reciprocity treaty we have made freely concessions to the free and inde- 
pendent Republic of Cuba without granting these concessions, as we were bound to do under 
the treaty of 1829, to Germany, and German trade, especially sugar, has suffered great 
damage through these allowances. Germany has a right to feel aggrieved on this score as 
is even admitted by the American Protective. Tariff League. 


But Germany wants to write our tariff laws, say some. Absurd! She only wants fair 
play. In fact, if Germany were consulted by us in this respect she would emphatically de- 
clare in favor of American protection because she is a protective tariff nation and she knows 
that the wealth of a nation is based on the producer. 

To sum up: 

We grant favors to other nations which we deny to Germany. 

Yet she must not complain. 


We permit other countries to apply their maximum tariff rates to American goods, note- 
able among them Spain, France, Portugal and the English possessions, towit Canada, South 
Africa and Australasia, which latter grant preferential rates to their mother country. We 
have even by treaty enactment of May 28, 1898 given approval to certain discriminations in 
the French tariff. 

But—Germany is a “horse of another color.” 


We demand favors from Germany freely for which other nations pay adequately and 
when Germany requests that we either yield the same compensation as these other nations 
have done, or pay her regular tariff rates we are horrified and exclaim : 

Germany discriminates against us. . 


We treat German exporters worse than criminals because we do not even allow them an 
open trial and confiscate their property without court proceedings. But we demand that 
Germany accept the statements of our exporters as holy writ when it is notoriously known 
that some American goods, as for instance those of the Steel Trust, can be purchased abroad 
much cheaper with transportation, duty and all other incidental costs added than manufacturers’ 
price in the United States. Germany’s export price for surplus production is a fraud and a 
steal but our surplus production price is fair and square and on the level. If Germany has 
the temerity to enforce on our goods her sanitary laws to which all nations are subject we are 
dreadfully shocked and cry out: 


Germany boycotts American goods. 


Of course, Germany is always in the wrong. ...... 


What is to be done? 


It’s unworthy for two mighty nations like the United States and Germany to squabble 
and to call each other names like street urchins. It’s improper for them to eye each other 
constantly with suspicion like slick horse traders. There must be ways and means to put 
their trade relations permanently on a dignified basis. 


The way, and there is under the circumstances only one way, consists in a joint reci- 
procity commission to be composed of members of Congress and of members of the Reichs- 
tag, accompanied by trade experts as attachés. This commission to meet either in Germany 
or in the United States for the purpose of talking matters over, comparing notes and agree- 
ing an a detailed plan of reciprocity for mutual advantage. Diplomatic efforts having sign- 
ally failed it is time for the legislative bodies to meet through a commission and come to an 
agreement on a fair and square business proposition, There is no doubt that such a joint 
commission, meeting man to man and arguing view to view could speedily settle the whole 
matter in a satisfactory way. 


The proposition of such a Reciprocity Joint Commission has, we are glad to say, met 
with the full and unqualified approval of the leading diplomats, statesmen, intellectuals and 
businessmen, such as: Prince von Bilow, the German Chancellor ; the Honorable Andrew 
D. White, Ex-Ambassador to Germany ; Senator Thomas C. Platt of New York; Senator 
Chauncey M. Depew of New York ; Senator Jacob H. Gallinger of New Hampshire ; Senator 
Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin; Senator S. H. Piles of Washington ; Senator Geo. C. 
Perkins of California; Senator B. R. Tillman of South Carolina ; Senator Wm. A. Clark of 
Montana ; President Ira Remsen of Johns Hopkins University ; President Woodrow Wilson 
of Princeton University ; President J. G. Schurman of Cornell University ; President Arthur 
T. Hadley of Yale University ; D. M. Parry, President of the National Association of Manu- 
facturers; F. A. Vanderlip, Vice-President of the National City Bank, New York; Robert 
C. Ogden, in firm John Wanamaker, New York; Joha A. Sleicher, President of the National 
Republican Editors Association, etc., etc. 

The whole matter is of grave importance and in the interest of good relations and good 
will which have so happily existed between the two nations for over 100 years it is to be 
hoped that everything will be done to bring about an arrangement mutually beneficial long 
before the sixteen months, the period of grace, have elapsed. 


HEINRICH CHARLES. 


Germany Has Been Greatly Wronged. 


The following article was published in the “American Economist,” the official organ of 
the American Protective Tariff League, on January 12, 1906. 


Germany not without provocation. 


While in cordial agreement with the general tone of level headed Americanism which 
characterized a very able article in the “North American,” of Philadelphia, on the subject of 
Tariff and trade relations between the United States and Germany, we must dissent from the 
statement that : 

This nation has never threatened Germany, nor in any manner discriminated against its products. 
Our Tariff law is perfectly impartial. It has but one set of duties, which operate uniformly in all cases, 
irrespective of the origin of imports. What German goods pay at our ports of entry all other similar im- 
ports pay. Thus, at least, the Germans cannot truthfully say that we have imposed any special disabilities 
upon them as sellers in the American market. They are treated precisely as we treat everybody. 

Not precisely. Has our neighbor of the “North American” forgotten that in the 
case of the existing “reciprocity” arrangement with Cuba we discriminate against a 
very important product of Germany? We grant to Cuban sugar an advantage of 20 
per cent. in Tariff duties which we deny to German sugar. 

At one time shortly prior to the enactment of the Cuban blunder we bought 
sugar from Germany at the rate of nearly $10,000,000 ayear. At present Germany 
sells us less than $100,000 a year of sugar. Germany put in a protest against this 
gross favoritism at the time when the Cuban dicker was under consideration, That 
protest was ignored. We cooly elected to favor a country which was buying 
$21,000,000 a year from us and to offend a country whose purchases from us were 
more than eight times $21,000,000. 


If anybody is looking for the origin of the German resentment which has now assumed 
the form of hostile Tariff discrimination against the exports of the United States he need 
look no farther back than the date of the existing ‘reciprocity’ foolishness with Cuba. He 
will find it there. 


While firmly determined upon standing fast to our Tariff and upon resisting the attempts 
of any or all foreign nations to force us to change that Tariff, let us not forget that in the 
present instance Germany is not altogether without provocation. The United States did a 
silly thing when it decided to play Cuba as a favorite. One of the first steps to be taken 
toward getting back to a friendly footing with Germany should be the abrogation by Congress 
of the Cuban “reciprocity” bargain. The big wigs of the Administration are figuring on a 
modus vivendi with Germany. Let them try that one. It would be a good thing in many ways. 


Professor Muensterberg’s Appeal. 


Professor Hugo Muensterberg of Harvard University speaking on the duties and opport- 
unities of Germans in America at a banquet of German Veterans in Boston, Mass., at the 
celebration of the silver wedding of the German Emperor made the following remarks : 


“One thing above all was the natural province of the Germans in America, They alone 
were called to mediate between their old and their new home. They had seen both countries 
with the eyes of love; they had to prevent the coming of strife between these United States 
and the fatherland. Have the Germans really done enough in the direction of this evident 
duty ? 


“T am not thinking, of course, of a war of armies. Whoever toys with the possibility of a 
real war between the two nations belongs no more to the circle of those who can be taken 
seriously, and when the poisoned arrows fly about, when the infamous lies are circulated intim- 
ating that Germany is looking for trouble in South America and is aiming at the colonies in 
Brazil, then every child knows that such inventions are fabricated for malicious purposes. 


“In the battle of which I am thinking, the fighting is not with arms, but with high Tariff 
paragraphs. And yet who can deny that a real economic war would be a gigantic misfortune 
for the two nations which are to-day almost each other’s best customers, and that all which 
has been built up in years of friendly rivalry und cultured exchange may break down with 
devastating effect as soon as the tension of real economic war sets in? 

“T repeat, the German-Americans have not to make a separate hyphenate politics, and 
there are among them, as among any group of good Americans, Republicans and Democrats, 
stand-patters and revisionists ; but party questions are not here under discussion. I am think- 
ing of questions of justice and good-will. 

“When Germany a few years ago laid down on a new basis her commercial policy toward 
the whole globe and made commercial treaties with some leading nations, she was logically 
obliged by the very concessions of the other countries to give warning to cease the one-sided 
favors so far given to the United States. Only one thing was essential to eliminate from 
this position every danger of war: it was necessary indeed to exclude all distortions of the 
situation. 

“It was not to be tolerated that Germany’s action should be misrepresented to mean a 
malicious attack, an attack which must naturally awake in every patriotic American the desire 
that Washington should show its readiness to retaliate with vigor. Here was a chance for the 
Germans to show their understanding of Germany. They had to convince the country that 
not the slightest discrimination against America was involved, no attack and no surprise, and 
that Germany was only doing just what America had done in exactly the same way a few 
years before. 

“Public opinion, which always loves fair play, could then not help seeing that just after 
Germany’s raising of duties the two countries stood like two friendly rivals in the field of sport, 
on equal ground with equal conditions to play. 

“Instead of this there came at once a thunder of response that it was a patriotic duty of 
every congressman to punish Germany by a still higher American tariff, and ungenerous 
threatening destroyed the good sentiment so quickly that every hope for an immediate nat- 
ural approach with concessions disappeared. The German government, in its steady, con- 
scientious love of peace, once again this time avoided the unnecessary contest and reconsidered 
its move. The day after to-morrow there begins the just voted provisory regime in which 
Germany once more, at least for a year, gives every concession without receiving anything— 
an act provided only in the interest of peace. Yet, a year passes quickly. 

“We celebrate to-day the silver wedding of the German Emperor, and everywhere the 
Germans of this country are assembled to-day to thank the great man who has furthered and 
advanced Germandom with such incessant energy. He has declined to receive personal 
presents, and has urged that all intended presents be transformed into public charitable 
foundations for the good of the commonwealth. I trust that this is meant for the spiritual as 
well as for the material gifts. 

‘The thoughts and feelings which to-day greet the brillant Emperor—the most interesting 
figure on the world’s stage, the one monarch who has given new meaning and new vital force 
to the monarchical idea—these thoughts and feelings ought not to be personal homage only; 
they ought to be transformed into moral foundations for the good of the world’s peace. 


9 


“In this sense, I feel sure, we Germans here assembled—and I wish such a call might 
reach the Germans of the whole country—we ought to celebrate this German silver wedding 
day by a promise to work incessantly for the destruction of the absurd prejudice against 
Germany, and to do our best and utmost that before the year’s provisory act comes to an end 
the public opinion of this country shall demand a commercial treaty on the new lines between 
the United States and the Fatherland, to the end that the two most able nations can maintain 
friendship and loyalty for many years to come. Such a resolution and such an achievement 
of the Germans in America would be the most splendid and the most beneficial gift at the 
silver wedding, Let us not part to-night without such a pledge and promise.” 


Views of Diplomats. 


In an interview granted to the representative of the Associated Press in Berlin October 
30th, last year Prince von Billow, the German Chancellor, made the following statement: 

“The simplest way to settle once for all the pending tariff questions between Germany 
and the United States of America would be if say ten persons from either side who are spe- 
cially versed in tariff matters would meet around a table for a frank and friendly interchange 
of views and an amiable explanation of the respective position. A direct acquaintance with 
the standpoint cf the opposition has always a healing and conciliating effect. Perhaps in this 
way an arrangement could be arrived at sooner and quicker. 

‘We sincerely wish such an understanding and we work hard in this direction with the 
consciousness that though wishes, interests and opinions might be different on both sides, 
still there is all possibility to get together if the general advantages of a sound reciprocity are 
kept in view.” 


ANDREW D. WHITE, 
Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 


The Germania Press, October 6, 1905. 
5 Beekman Street, New York City. 


Gentlemen: 

Replying to your letter of October 2nd, with document 
enclosed, I am heartily and entirely with you in the proposition 
made in the latter. 

A commercial rupture between the United States and Germany, 
especially when it can be avoided by simple common sense and plain 
justice, would seem to be both a crime and a folly. 

As you cogently point out, all the traditions of the two 
nations would be departed from in such a rupture, and not only so, 
but the best traditions among all the great civilized nations of the 
modern world would be violated. 

Your suggestion of a conference, made up of reciprocity 
commissioners, with plenary powers, to be accompanied by trade 
experts from either side, seems to me admirable. With thanks to you 
for calling my attention to the subject, and with every good wish 
for your success, I remain, 

Most sincerely and respectfully yours, 


ANDREW D. WHITE, 
Formerly United States Ambassador at Berlin. 


Io 


VIEWS OF AMERICAN STATESMEN. 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 
Washington, D. C. 
February 9, 1906. 


Mr. Heinrieh Charles, 
Editor The Germania Press, 

New York City. 

My dear Sir:-- 

Replying to your letter of February seventh, I beg to say 
that a tariff war between two important nations is always deplorable 
and should be averted, if possible. I should be disposed to favor a 
settlement of the issues between Germany and the United States by the 
appointment of a joint commission to consider existing matters of 


difference. 
Yours very truly, 
Pee Geer ish U1); 


United States Senator for New York. 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 


Washington, D. C. 
February 21, 1906. 


Heinrich Charles, Esq., 
Editor, Germania Press, 
5 Beekman St., New York. 


Dear Sir: 

I am in receipt of your letter of Febr. 20th. 

I know of no better way to bring about a settlement of 
differences between nations on the tariff questions than by the 
appointment of such a commission as the one suggested. 


Yours sincerely, 
CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, 
United States Senator for New York. 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 


Washington, D. C. 
February 21, 1906. 


Heinrich Charles, Esq., 
Editor, Germania Press, 
9 Beekman St., New York. 


Dear Sir: 

I am in favor of every possible effort being made to avert 
a tariff war between this country and Germany, and the proposition 
to establish a joint commission, composed of members of congress and 
members of the Reichstag, accompanied by trade experts, appeals to 
me as very likely the best possible methods that can be adopted. 


Yours respectfully, 
J. H. GALLINGER, 
United States Senator for New Hampshire. 


I! 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 
Washington, D. C. 


Mr. Heinrich Charles, February 21, 1906. 
5S Beekman St., New York City. 
My Dear Sir: 


I am in receipt of your letter of the twentieth of 
February with reference to a commercial treaty between the United 
States and Germany. I should regard it as particularly unfortunate 
if there should arise any contest of a retaliatory nature to disturb 
the friendly commercial relations which have so long existed between 
Germany and this country. 

I should be in favor of the appointment of a commission 
such as you suggest, for the purpose of considering these matters. 


Very truly yours, 
ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, 


United States Senator for Wisconsin. 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 
Washington, D. C. 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, February 24, 1906. 
Editor, Germania Press, 
9 Beekman St., New York City, N. Y. 
Dear Sir:-- 


While I am averse to expressing for publication my views 
On matters affecting pending legislation, I would say in reply to 
your favor of the 20th instant, that I would welcome anything tending 
to cement good feeling between the United States and Germany. It is 
my opinion that a friendly exchange of views along the lines 
indicated by Prince von Bulow’s statement, would have a beneficial 
effect. 

Yours very truly, 
So. (HoePIunS, 


United States Senator for Washington. 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 
Washington, D. C. 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, February 21, 1906. 


Editor, The Germania Press, New York. 


Dear Mr. Charles: 


I am in receipt of yours of the 19th inst., relative 
to the trade relations of the United States and Germany, and would 
say, that I shall approve of any honorable means for reaching an 
understanding that will avert a commercial war, and arrive at an 
understanding as to the trade necessities of the two countries that 
will enable a mutually advantageous arrangement to be arrived at. 
I think such a joint commission as is suggested would go far to 
bring about an understanding that would enable a satisfactory 
Settlement to be made. 

Yours very truly, 
GEO. C. PERKINS, 


United States Senator for California. 


12 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 
Washington, D. C. 
February 2lst, 1906. 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, 


Editor of The Germania Press, New York City. 
Dear Sir:- 
I have your letter of February 20th. I think the appoint- 


ment of a joint commission to avert a tariff war between the United 
States and Germany would be a wise proceeding. 


Very truly yours, 
Bek. TILLMAN, 
United States Senator for South Carolina. 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 
Washington, D. C. 
February 21, 1906. 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, Editor, 


The Germania Press, 5 Beekman Street, New York. 


Dear Sir:- 

I have your valued favor of the 20th pertaining to our re- 
lations with Germany on the tariff question. I believe that the sug- 
gestion of the Chancellor of the German Empire on this subject, is a 
good one, and I would be decidedly in favor of such a conference as 
is proposed in the suggestion made by him. 

Yours very truly, 
WM. A. CLARK, 


United States Senator for Montana. 


VIEWS OF UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS. 


PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, 
Princeton, N. J. 
President’s Room. February 21, 1906. 
My Dear Sir: 
In reply to your letter of the 17th, I would say that it 

seems to me that your suggestion of a conference between Germany 

and the United States, made up of reciprocity commissioners with 
plenary powers, is an excellent one. 


Very sincerely yours, 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, WOODROW WILSON, President. 
New York City. 


Office of the President, 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY, 
Ithaca, New York. 
February 23, 1906. 
Dear Sir: - 
I should regard a tariff war between the United States and Germany 
as not only a great disaster but as colossal folly. 

The two governments must understand one another's point of view, and 
both sides, I doubt not, will have to make concessions. The preliminary work 
might, as you well suggest, be done by @ committee of Congress and a com- 
mittee of the Reichstag; but after their work had been completed the problem 
would only have begun. The next and all-important step would be to bring the 
peoples and governments of both countries to a frame of mind in which they 


13 


would acquiesce in the findings of their representatives. This is to be ac- 
complished by that process of education which speakers and especially news- 
paper writers have it in their power to bring about. I certainly am unwill- 
ing to believe that the American people will reject a proposition which rea- 
son accredits, which statesmanship commends, and which the interests and even 
the peace and mutual good relations of two great nations make imperatively 
necessary. Very truly yours, 

J. G@. SCHURMAN, President. 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, 

Editor, The Germania Press, 


5 Beekman Street, New York City. 


President’s Office. 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, 
Baltimore, Md. 
February 20, 1906. 
Dear Sir:- 

I have received your letter of February 17th. I heartily approve of 
your method of dealing with the problem therein referred to. It seems to me 
that your suggestion is a very wise one, and as quoted in your letter, I find 
that the Chancellor of the German Empire has expressed views with which I am 
entirely in sympathy. 

Everything should be done to avoid a commercial rupture between Ger- 
many and the United States. I can imagine no better way of avoiding it than 
that suggested by you. It is based upon common sense, which is the highest 
form of wisdom. I an, 

Yours very truly, 
IRA REMSEN, President. 
Heinrich Charles, Esq. 


YALE UNIVERSITY, 

New Haven, Conn. 
February 19th, 1906. 
My dear Sir:- 

I should lay great weight on whatever Mr. White said in a matter 
of this kind. Whether ten persons could be selected who could really make 
any promises for this country, or even create a basis of understanding, is a 
question which I do not like to answer offhand. You may, however, regard me 
as most heartily in favor of anything which will contribute to a better 
mutual understanding in these matters of international importance. 

Faithfully yours, 
ARTHUR T. HADLEY, President. 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, 


5 Beekman Street, New York. 


VIEWS OF BUSINESSMEN. 


THE NATIGNAL ASSOCIATION GF MANUFACTURERS, 
Office of President, Indianapolis, Ind. 
Nov. 13,° 1905. 
To The Germania Press, 
5 Beekman Street, New York City. 


Gentlemen: - 


I owe you an apology for not having sooner answered a letter from 
you relating to the making of a commercial treaty between Germany and the 
United States. In some manner the letter became unfortunately misplaced. I 
have read the circular attached to the letter and I wish to say that I be- 
lieve it offers a practical plan for the solution of the difficulty. My 
position is that there should be a treaty promptly formulated with Germany 
which will give this country the best terms possible, and a properly con- 
stituted joint commission seems to offer the best means that could be em- 


14 


ployed in arriving at an understanding that will be endorsed by the legis- 
lative bodies of both countries. 


Hoping that you are meeting with encouragement in your efforts, I am 


Yours very truly, 
D. M. PARRY, President. 


52 Wall Street, New York. 
February 20, 1906. 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, 


The Germania Press, 5 Beekman Street. 
Dear Sir:- 


I am in receipt of your pamphlet in reference to German American 
Commercial Relations, and have read with interest your proposition to arrange 
for a conference to consider this most important subject. I quite agree with 
you that such a conference, if composed of the right men, and meeting ina 
spirit of good will and reciprocity, would do much toward bringing the two 
nations into a better mutual understanding, an understanding which might be 
very helpful in paving the way for wise legislation. 

I cordially wish you every success in your effort to improve the pres- 
ent unsatisfactory relations between the German Empire and the United States, 
and am obliged to you for calling my attention to your admirable plan. 

Very truly yours, 
F, A. VANDERLIP, 


Vice-President, National City Bank. 


ROBERT C. OGDEN, 
784 Broadway, New Yerk. 
Private Office, 
February 19, 1906. 
Heinrich Charles, Esq., 
The Germania Press, 5 Beekman Street, New York. 
Dear Sir:- 

Not being sufficiently posted upon international tariff questions to 
discuss them intelligently, I must limit my reply to yours of the 17th inst. 
to a cordial endorsement of the Hon. Andrew D. White's statements to you un- 
der date of October 8th, 1905. His opinions seem to be so thoroughly reason- 
able and wise that, in my judgment, they should control in the adjustment of 
German American commercial relations. 

Yours very truly, 
ROBERT C. OGDEN, 


In Firm John Wanamaker. 


EDITORIAL OPINION. 
JUDGE COMPANY, 
(Judge, Leslie’s Weekly), 
225 Fourth Avenue, New York. 
February 21, i906. 
Mr. Heinrich Charles, 
Kditor, The Germania Press, 5 Beekman St., N. Y. 

My dear Sir:- 

I have your letter of the 19th, and am very favorably impressed by 
your suggestion that our trade differences with Germany might be most readily 
settled by the appointing of a joint commission, consisting of members of 
Congress and of the Reichstag, though I doubt the necessity of the addition 
of trade experts to this commission. No better experts on the subject of the 
tariff can probably be found than among the members of the American Congress, 
and I have no doubt that gentlemen equally gifted in this direction can be 
found in the Reichstag. : 

I am very glad that the suggestion has been made, and hope it will be 
carried out as speedily as possible, either in the present or a modified 
form. I am sincerely impressed by the need of not only retaining, but im- 
proving, the friendly relations which exist between Germany and our own coun- 


oh Very truly yours, 
JOHN A. SLEICHER. 


15 


MAA 
3 35 


0112 115835743 


Opinion of Congress Representative Bartholdt of Missouri. 


Representative Bartholdt was asked by a representative of the “Germania Press” for his 
opinion with regard to the new German Tariff. Mr. Bartholdt spent several months in Germany 
last summer and has carefully noted the discussions in German newspapers of the trade rela- 
tions between the United States and the German Empire. Though counted among the stand- 
patters, as far as the general revision of the Tariff is concerned, he strongly favors a reciprocity 
treaty with Germany. Such a treaty, in his opinion, would not involve a violation of the 
Republican principle of protection, but on the contrary, would be aconfirmation of its wisdom. 
He says: | 

“Our Democratic friends are greatly mistaken when they assume that favoring reciprocity 
treaties means any sacrifice of principle with regard to protection. The difference between 
their position and ours is a radical one. They are striving to reduce duties as a matter of 
principle and irrespective of commercial consequences, while Republicans who are favoring 
reciprocity insist on a fair return for every concession they make, in accordance with the Latin 
maxim Do ut des. Accordingly in every case were a reduction of duty is granted through 
reciprocity, an equivalent must be given by the other nation which will open its market to 
American imports. So much for reciprocity in its general aspects. As to our trade relations 
with Germany it is but fair to keep in mind that in making her new Tariff Germany did not 
discriminate against any particular nation, but made its rates applicable to all alike except 
those who were willing to negotiate reciprocity treaties with her. It will not help matters in 
the present controversy to arouse animosities by alleging that German legis'ation was a drive 
at Uncle Sam. When at Berlin last September a number of American Congressmen, myself 
included, were the guests of the American Chamber of Commerce at Berlin. The members - 
of that organization are all Americans doing business in Germany by selling American goods. 
The sentiment among these men was unanimous in favor of some reciprocal arrangement 
between the two countries by which their increasing trade would be protected. I distinctly 
remember the statements of a gentleman from California on this question, which were to the 
effect that he had built up an immence business in Germany by the sale of California dried 
fruits. From a small beginning he had gradually increased this business to about $8,000,000 
a year, and, he said, if the German Tariff went into effect against us, he would close his office, 
throw away the key and go back to California. In other words, he would be unable to do a 
dollar’s worth of business under the new Tariff and the $8,000,000 of American exports in this 
particular line would be wiped out. Similar statements were made by other gentlemen with 
respect to other classes of products and goods, and it then dawned upon me that it would be 
the part of wise statemanship to try and save this trade. I earnestly hope that an amicable 
arrangement may be reached which could be best promoted by discarding the idea prevailing 
in some quarters that we are confronted by a mere bluff which should be called. In the middle 
ages unscrupulous rulers might-attempt such a thing, but diplomacy in the 20th century would 
not dare to play a game fraught with such dangers. For one I am for friendly relations with 
the great German empire and its people, and, in my judgment, a policy promoting them will 


be best for both. 


“A tariff war, like every other war, works immeasurable injury to both contending 
parties, and an amicable understanding is generally less expensive than even a victory in 
such cases.’ 


16 


